Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bourgeois personality

• Comment: how do we close this discussion? Hobgoblein (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. This article is poorly written, poorly researched, overly opinionated, just plain incorrect in many instances, and quite unsuitable for a grade school classroom let alone encyclopedic inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.104.220 (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

:{{la|Bourgeois personality}} ([{{fullurl:Bourgeois personality|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bourgeois personality}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{find sources|Bourgeois personality}})

The article itself seems to serve to legitimate encyclopedic purpose. It seems to be restating information about social classes already covered in other articles. Jamesofur (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• KeepI think a few sentences directing further attention to Bourgeois would be fine but most of the text (even of the current version) should go. Hobgoblein (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

:Well. Is this article really being considered for deletion, or are we trying to make it look this way? Go ahead and edit or remove the bit about the billionaire if you want, but note the expand section tag. DinDraithou (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

:Keep>Wrong forum article nominated to circumvent edit-war warnings and content dispute. Abuse of AfD. Your option is to propose a merger. Seb az86556 (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

::I am a completely different person then the person who was doing the edit waring (I was drawn to the article because of the vandalism he was doing being brought up in huggle I think it's a bad article that doesn't belong here I'm not looking for a merger. If the community disagrees thats fine but I in no way think it's an abuse of AfD. Jamesofur (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

:::It is abuse. Deploy the "propose merge"-tag and discuss. Seb az86556 (talk) 06:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

::::I'm not asking to merge the article, I'm asking to delete it. I think my original nomination reasoning was badly worded (at the time the current content wasn't there because of the edit wars) In my opinion the current content makes the article completely unsuitable for Wikipedia. Jamesofur (talk) 06:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::See, now we're talking, instead of tit-for-tats. Give me the link to an article or articles where it's already covered. Seb az86556 (talk) 06:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::I think some of the legitimate points are made or could be made in topics such as Middle Class Upper middle class American middle class. However (and the real reason I think it deserves to be considered for deletion at the moment) is that it is written in such a blatant POV format that it in many ways could be considered an attack article and would need a total rewrite to fix that.Jamesofur (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::Good. Got me. Also found Bourgeoisie. On further reflection, I find the title's use of "personality" highly unsual. Seb az86556 (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::::I truly appreciate your willingness to talk about it :) Thank you :) Jamesofur (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Changed vote after clarification (see above). Seb az86556 (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

::This is not a democracy, and you are two users, both taking up too much space in this vacuum. The existence of the article predates briefly debated additions. Give informed reasons and I'll support your fashions. DinDraithou (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

:::You are correct it is not a democracy. It's original incarnation [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bourgeois_personality&oldid=118528733 here] is not actually that bad at all. However, in my opinion it is currently written as an attack article (mostly by you). Jamesofur (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

::is not actually that bad at all. Fashioned opinion. Do you feel like you know about it? DinDraithou (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy close without an outcome. As an overriding consideration, plausible search terms should not be redlinks, and this is a plausible search term. Therefore the only sensible outcomes for this AfD would be "keep", "merge", or "redirect"—all of which are, in terms of AfD, variants of a "keep" outcome.

  Personally I think there's a very strong case for a merge with bourgeoisie, which I note has already been proposed, but whether or not that's the outcome is an editorial decision rather than an administrative one, so it should be discussed on the article's talk page and not at AfD.

  In other words, there's nothing for AfD to do here, so the speedy close is the obvious answer.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Whatever potential the subject has, this text looks like opinionated original research, somebody's not very good school paper, referenced to dictionaries and works of fiction. The article's startling claims that the American middle class routinely abuses its children -- American parents achieving a diagnosis and prescription for their child, often from a private physician or psychiatrist, are frequently engaged in middle class child abuse. This is commonly sexual seduction... -- are referenced to an Australian newspaper from the 1970s. An article making these startling claims needs better sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

:*I'm a little surprised at this !vote, Smerdis/Ihcoyc; I had anticipated that you would be one of those who perceived this as a plausible search term. Are you certain?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

::*Comment. The article has been edited substantially since I offered that opinion, and the bizarre section about child abuse removed entirely. It surely looks better now. I'm not sure now whether this merits a separate article, or ought to simply be a section of bourgeoisie. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge with bourgeoisie. I'm totally for this. My original wish was to add the material there, but I got the impression of middle class power when I tried to remove two one line aspirational statements from the page instead of tagging them. I should have waited for consensus of course. Anyway, it looks like the majority of what I have added to this article is not covered elsewhere on Wikipedia, although it is commonly enough spoken, mostly in Europe including the United Kingdom, the source of the en. before wikipedia.org. The trouble with the bourgeoisie article is that it only covers the deeply held opinions and aspirations of perhaps 1/3 to 1/2 of Americans and less Britons. Status conscious Middle class child abuse can be Googled, and needs to be on Wikipedia somewhere. The shortcomings of private American psychiatry are well known internationally, and the "bourgeois personality" is a major social factor, especially when there is no chance of coverage on psychiatry pages (policed by American psychiatry students). I also have another French film, from just a few years ago, to add. Charlotte Rampling gets gloriously bourgeois French in it. DinDraithou (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

::I'll concede there are some problems, hence the tags, but the article is written to be brutally frank, which the title allows for. Plus it isn't close to finished. There are thousands like it with no sources at all but which don't make the middle classes angry. What we really need to delete are the countless minor sportsperson articles. Anyone ever tried to search a surname? DinDraithou (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. This article is irredeemable, unsubstantiated, opinionated twaddle. The author lays claim to European, and specifically British, perspectives, although his perverse opinions on class and aristocracy would be unrecognisable to a native of the UK, and these "insights" appear to have been garnered entirely from watching far too much Sunday-night "nostalgia" television (e.g. Monarch of the Glen and Foyle's War), which the author cites as if a credible sociological source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.165.188 (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

::Yes that's what I'm doing, laying claim to historical European perspectives (not gotten from television, added for certain readers). The title contains two important words, which beg for them. You've just made an aspirational statement, expressing the hopes of your social class as your consensus. DinDraithou (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If a little middle class wrath, American and British, forces the deletion of this article, part of it might be tweaked and recreated with another title. The "commercial aspects of American psychiatry section" could be split elsewhere, but the military versus mercantile discussion is core and of historical importance. Bourgeois mentality? DinDraithou (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• The term is Bourgeois worldview. Abductive (reasoning) 08:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm wasting this day on the internet, going round in circles, and here I am again, because I'm the main contributor and now have to pettily defend an article I didn't start.

What exactly is "incorrect", and how can an article titled like this be "poorly researched"? This is not a research type article, but an "obvious, duh" type article, an "opinion" article, and I thought I would give it some familiar (to some) opinions, because bourgeoisie is just as opinionated and is "little worldish". Blar, I wish I'd never written anything on the commercial middle class American psychoactive drug and child abuse culture. That's what this is all about. DinDraithou (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

:: If you are frustrated by writing this article, why not just abandon the damn thing and return to editing on Ireland-related topics, about which you appear to have considerable expertise. I don't know why you are wasting your time on this tedium. If, for health reasons, you simply must vent your spleen against the iniquities of the bourgeoisie, then start a blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.165.188 (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

:::Yeah I'm tired of it, and finished off with a few tweaks and wikilinks. DinDraithou (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

::::I appreciate your work to be honest ( I know you may not believe me) and I think your right about the type of article which in many ways is my biggest problem. It is an opinion title and it's very hard to get any "facts" into it because of that. That to be honest is the biggest problem I have with it just that that type of article doesn't totally belong here. To make matters worse I think the title sort of asks to be written in a point of view style which specifically targets certain social groups in a depreciating way which again doesn't belong here :( Jamesofur (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Good points. Before maybe going forward with a complicated partial merge with bourgeoisie, we could 1) change the title, and 2) add opposing views. I just came across McCloskey (further reading), who defends bourgeois society and says it is better for the welfare of the general populace. Probably true, unless one happens to be a born contentious militarist, aristocrat or religious person. DinDraithou (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

nobody cares if the bourgeois are important or whatever ive never heard a middle class person talk like that. do add the mccloskey study to an article on the sociology of economic classes because thats meaningful. Hobgoblein (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC).

Re: 88.66.165.188. I really do need to return to Irish topics and abandon this. There was this VP of General Electric... a truly awful person. DinDraithou (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll finish here by saying that I've added four titles under a new Bourgeois_personality#Further_reading section. DinDraithou (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep needs a good deal of expansion but expandable. The topic is indeed discussed under that name. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect. This is a content fork of Bourgeoisie. Content forks are not to be tolerated. Abductive (reasoning) 06:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC){{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bourgeois personality||}}

Why is it still listed? It only got listed in the first place because of the repeated blanking by one single new editor, who never gave a good reason, only calling it "offensive content". I don't understand how it could be deleted now after the additional references were added. A merge could still be the eventual goal but that means approval from the Marxism focused writers of Bourgeoisie. I think it could be retitled Bourgeois mentality until they are talked to. DinDraithou (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

:Make that six references. DinDraithou (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

:Doubled. Make that twelve references. DinDraithou (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawal I'm ok with withdrawing my proposal at the moment, it is definitely much better off then when I originally proposed deletion and while I still have some content level problems they are not in my opinion appropriate as reasons to delete the article. I think that the best way to proceed in the long term would be a merge but that may take a bit of time to work things out with what appears to be a very different group of editors at Bourgeoisie. Jamesofur (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

:Thanks. There are still problems. The article accurately represents, but a fair amount is synthetic in the extreme, which gives an original synthesis or even original research appearance to certain passages. The fact that some are "POV" is not the real problem because a lot of Wikipedia is just sourced, "academic" POV, if it's sourced at all. Again we have to look at Bourgeoisie. DinDraithou (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

im seconding james here. im kind of impressed with the new changes. Hobgoblein (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC).

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.